The Routes Not Taken Read online

  “Amity Street up to Union Street and beyond Central Avenue [now 149th Street] out is now mainly a business thoroughfare,” countered Maynard H. Spear of the Flushing Association. “There are just four blocks between Union Street and Central Avenue that may be said to be exclusively a residential street. That, of course, is where Judge Fitch lives and owns considerable property. The judge’s remark that an elevated structure would materially reduce the value of his or other property along the street is to my mind erroneous. On the contrary, I am sure it would greatly increase property values. This has been proved in numerous cases throughout the city.”

  “I think the judge is wrong in saying that the elevated structure through Myrtle Avenue, Brooklyn,21 has spoiled that street,” he continued. “While it may have spoiled it as an exclusive residential street, it has without a doubt greatly increased property values along the avenue and today Myrtle Avenue is one of the busiest business thoroughfares in the Borough of Brooklyn.”22

  Other property owners attended a joint committee meeting on January 9 to voice opposition. Judge Harrison S. Moore said, “The city will have to pay for changes to the property necessary for the widening of West Amity Street if an ‘L’ structure is to be built. Take the money necessary for these condemnation procedures, add it to the cost of an ‘L’ structure and you will find a subway to be cheaper. An elevated structure will do untold harm to residents of West Amity Street, who have toiled year after year to acquire their homes only to have them destroyed by an unnecessary elevated structure if this goes through.”23

  Ira Terry, the meeting’s chairman, read a letter from Daniel Carter Beard,24 who lived at Amity Street and Bowne Avenue (now Bowne Street):

  [An el] would necessitate the chopping down of every tree along Amity Street, denude the whole street of foliage and then, if the elevated structure were erected it would practically occupy the whole street space level with the second stories of the buildings, making all below that level dark, dingy and disagreeable …

  … With an elevated road running along Amity Street the properties would be valueless except for policy shops, chop suey restaurants or tall gloomy tenement houses tall enough to reach above the elevated tracks with rents cheap enough to induce people to endure the racket and noise of the trains in front of their windows.25

  Judge Moore suggested that protesting property owners form their own committee. The joint committee subsequently voted to await a decision by the PSC before acting,26 but one group began to change. Three days later, the Flushing Business Men’s Association met, reelected Pople as its president, and debated a motion from Judge Fitch opposing the construction of the elevated line and calling for the construction of a subway line.

  Noting that a meeting would be held with a PSC representative the next day about the line, Pople spoke about the need to proceed regardless of what would be built, using the South Bronx as an example:

  Thanks to the increase in rapid transit facilities, the price of lots at 149th Street and Third Avenue has increased from 300 to 900 percent within the past four or five years. Today that part of the city is the most densely populated part of the city and the reason for that it has both a subway [the extension of the original IRT line, now the route of the 7th Avenue line] and elevated system [the 2nd and 3rd Avenue Els], giving a five cent fare … Thanks to rapid transit, the assessed valuation at 149th street and Third avenue is from $6,000 to $60,00027 a lot, 25 × 100 feet …

  … I favor a subway on Amity Street. I talked to Public Service Commissioner Willcox and he has assured me that it is perfectly feasible to have a subway out Amity Street. I am not, however, in favor of any drastic resolution as to prohibit the erection of an elevated structure on this side of Flushing Creek.28

  James H. Quinlan supported Judge Fitch’s resolution: “There is nothing at all impossible about a subway to Flushing. They are going to build a subway nine miles to the Bronx29 to accommodate a population of 24,000. Why should it not be possible to continue a subway to Flushing from Sycamore Avenue, Corona, two and one-half miles to accommodate a population of 40,000?”30 After further discussion, the Business Men’s Association passed a resolution calling for the construction of a subway through Flushing and that a committee be appointed to meet with the PSC on this issue.31

  Pople, Terry, and Spear led a group from the joint committee that toured Flushing with Daniel L. Turner, representing the PSC, and Charles U. Powell of the Borough President’s Topographical Bureau. They inspected the streets that had been recommended for the route of either the elevated or the subway line.

  Other Third Ward groups wanted to extend rapid transit service to their communities. Frank E. Knab of the Whitestone Improvement Association, one of those who met with Commissioner Bassett in 1907, said his group would oppose extending the route through Flushing if an effort were not taken to bring rapid transit to College Point, Whitestone, and Bayside, supporting the construction of elevated lines: “I cannot see why the people of Flushing oppose a ‘L’ when two miles of elevated road can be built for what one mile of subway would cost.”32

  The objections raised in Flushing influenced the PSC. “The people in Flushing themselves have changed the situation,” a commissioner said. “They might as well understand right now that transit facilities are not going to be thrust down the throat of any community. From every section of the city we are receiving demands for transit and within a short time after the present [Dual Systems Contracts] are signed we propose to take up the matter of extensions. The strongest and the most united demands are about to be made by the Bronx, Staten Island and Brooklyn. Naturally, the Commission will give the most favorable consideration to those sections from which the demand is most united,” he continued. “The situation settles itself right down to this proposition: If the people of Flushing desire to continue to pay for transit extensions to other sections of the city and get none of the benefits themselves they may do so, for all the commission cares.”33

  Figure 3-4. Frank E. Knab. (Brooklyn Daily Eagle, April 4, 1918)

  A Long Island Daily Star editorial on January 20 supported an elevated line:

  The attitude taken by the opponents of elevated railroads through Flushing is an injury to the development and progress of that entire locality embracing also College Point, Whitestone and other sections that are all contiguous to the old village.

  We honestly believe, therefore, that the Public Service Commissioners would do well to entirely ignore the demonstrative opposition of certain Flushingites to the elevated railroad.34

  That editorial had no impact. The Flushing Association voted that evening to call for a subway. The opposition expressed by the property owners affected them. A. E. Sholes said, “It seems to me that what this town wants is united effort. The thing we want is a subway and under Amity Street as a direct line.”35

  The Whitestone Improvement Association met on January 22. Knab also wanted unity:

  Now is the time to stop bickering and stand unitedly for some form of transit. You have seen what united effort has done for the Bronx and for Manhattan. Never mind whether we get an elevated or subway, let us get something. What we want is transit, and we want it just as soon as we can secure it.

  If the current policy of protesting every plan or route proposed by the Commission be continued we will never get transit. The Public Service Commission is tired of receiving protests from Queens. If the residents of Whitestone, College Point and Bayside and Flushing will unite in some definite plan it will go through.36

  Groups representing communities south of Flushing bore out Knab’s call on January 24. They supported building an elevated line through their neighborhoods, using the right-of-way of the Stewart Railroad, a spur from the LIRR’s Port Washington line that ran to eastern Queens.37

  Gaynor and Willcox spoke at the Flushing Business Men’s Association dinner on January 27. Gaynor wanted to extend rapid transit to Flushing, but said that “we cannot put a subway out to the doorway of every one of you. W
e can only do what the City’s credit will allow us to do.”38 Willcox praised Pople for his efforts.39 He spoke at the dinner of the Queens Borough Chamber of Commerce the next night. While he admitted the need for subways in Queens, Willcox kept as his priority the approval for the Dual Systems Contracts.40

  Figure 3-5. Mayor William Jay Gaynor. (Wikimedia Commons)

  On January 28 the Flushing Association discussed what should be built. A resolution was again made calling for the construction of a subway. Frank E. Andrews moved to delete the language, saying, “Let us get away from the narrow-minded view that an elevated line will bring all the bad people out here. This is a nice town to live in; we have good schools and churches and the residences, but why build a wall around Flushing and keep the other people out?”41 The amended resolution was passed.

  A rally supporting the Dual Systems Contracts was held on January 30 at Hettinger’s Hall in Astoria. PSC Commissioner George V. S. Williams stated that the elevated line would be extended “clear out to Little Neck Bay,”42 well to the east of Flushing. This was a surprise, and the PSC tried to backtrack. Travis Whitney, the PSC’s secretary (and future commissioner), told the Flushing Daily Times the next day that Williams hadn’t meant to say what he said, but rather that the line would be extended as far as Main Street.43 Williams tried to amend his prior claim, saying the line would be built to Main Street, but the Commission’s intent was to continue the line to Little Neck Bay.44 This was the first time there was any indication that the PSC had a plan to build the line east of Flushing.

  Williams again tried to clarify his comments on February 1 to the Flushing Evening Journal. The PSC would send the plan for the initial extension of the line to the Board of Estimate. This was the section to be built from Corona to Flushing. “Nothing is to be done at present as to the second section of the proposed route from Main Street, Flushing to Bayside,” said Williams. “We will lay out the second section from Flushing to Bayside and hope to carry rapid transit ultimately to that section. At this time, however, it is our desire to have the Board of Estimate approve the elevated structure to Main Street so the Public Service Commission can legalize it.”45

  Williams outraged those opposing an el by stating that the PSC was pushing the one to Flushing to move the plan ahead. “You can say for me that I will fight the construction of an elevated structure through Flushing and will do all that I can to have the Board of Estimate approve a subway east of Lawrence Street,” said Ira Terry.46 “We will carry this fight to the bitter end. We will not have an ‘L’ through our street either above or below Main Street,” insisted Daniel Beard. “As we have said time and again it would ruin our property. They can’t get our consent and the only way that they can get our property is by condemnation procedure.”47

  The extended route would run past Flushing and along Warburton Avenue (now 38th Avenue) to Bayside Boulevard (now 221st Street) near Little Neck Bay. For much of this distance, the Flushing line would closely parallel the LIRR’s Port Washington line.

  The Bayside Civic Association rallied for the line on February 11. There were calls in the community to swing the line farther to the south of the LIRR, providing access to an area that didn’t have rail service.

  With the plan going to the Board of Estimate on February 13, Borough President Connolly announced his support for a subway: “I want to say to the residents of Flushing that I favor a subway through Amity Street and I will be with them in their fight for the subway when the proper time comes, as aggressively as I know how and I see no reason why a subway cannot be secured for this portion of this route.”48

  Figure 3-6. The New York Times ran this map on February 9, 1913, showing the Flushing line extension in the Third Ward.

  Pople came to the meeting with a petition signed by five thousand people who supported a subway. James W. Treadwell, an attorney who lived and owned property on Amity Street, opposed the construction of any transit line on Amity Street. Treadwell said the LIRR and the trolley lines in the area provided sufficient service.49 He called on the PSC to hold a hearing before the Board of Estimate proceeded with its deliberations.

  Manhattan Borough President George McAneny asked Treadwell if there were objections to rapid transit service through Flushing. Treadwell hesitated and said no. “Would it not be better to approve the laying on of the route through Flushing and leave the question of subway or elevated construction until the matter of construction comes up?” McAneny said. “Then in all probability, subway construction will be adopted, since this will not add more than $100,00050 to the cost.”

  “But we have no hearing before the Public Service Commission, and we demand one,” Treadwell responded. “There are others here to be heard,” Connolly said. Gaynor interrupted, saying, “We cannot require the Public Service Commission to give a hearing. We can give a hearing here.” Treadwell started to speak, but Gaynor stopped him: “Don’t talk so much.”51

  Pople defended the PSC: “The Public Service Commission has gone into this matter thoroughly. We have been before members of the Board on several occasions, and in company with a Flushing Committee, the engineer of the Public Service Commission has been over this and all other proposed routes in Flushing, with the result that he recommended this Amity Street route.”

  “Would not a subway be satisfactory to all citizens of Flushing?” Connolly asked. “It certainly would,” Pople answered. Treadwell said that while a subway was satisfactory there was no assurance one would be built.

  “If we lay out the route today as proposed, you may be sure that everything will be done in the best interest of Flushing,” Gaynor responded. “If [the] route were approved today with the understanding that the character of construction would be considered later, it would meet all conditions,” Connolly said.52 Gaynor then closed the hearing, deferring action for two weeks in order to give the PSC an opportunity to further consider the plan.

  The PSC didn’t act on the Flushing line in those two weeks, and the matter returned to the Board of Estimate. When it came up for discussion, Treadwell approached the podium with other members of his group. Gaynor stopped him and said, “Gentlemen. The Board has decided to return this matter to the [Board of Estimate] Transit Committee as it believes that the committee can handle it better than the entire Board. Your application to the Public Service Commission for a public hearing was refused, was it not?”

  “It has not been refused, your honor,” Treadwell answered. “Our application for a hearing is still on file and we have been given no decision.”

  “Well, I think our Transit Committee can take the question up with your people with great advantage to all concerned,” Gaynor said. “Will that be satisfactory?”

  Treadwell’s group conferred. “Your honor, to refer this matter to the Transit Committee of the Board will be very satisfactory to the people who favor the Amity Street route as it is,” Pople said. “Well, this seems to be satisfactory to everybody,” Gaynor said.53 The full Board of Estimate then referred the matter to the Transit Committee.

  Discussion continued of how the line would be built. Connolly, McAneny, Brooklyn Borough President Alfred E. Steers, and Clifford Moore and Charles U. Powell of the Queens Topographical Bureau toured Flushing in early March to determine the best means of tunneling. They determined that the most feasible way of doing this was “open-cut” construction—digging a trench, building the tunnel, and then filling it in.54

  Third Ward groups continued their efforts to extend the line. The Bayside Civic Association passed a resolution on March 11 supporting an extension. Another rally was held the next night at the Zion Parish House in Douglaston for residents of both that community and Little Neck. A week later, Jacob Graeser of the College Point Taxpayers Association told the Flushing Evening Journal that his community wanted consideration as well.55 These efforts didn’t affect the Board of Estimate. It laid over the Flushing line at its March 13 meeting after Treadwell reported that the PSC hadn’t acted on their request for a hearing.56


  Connolly spoke the next day of the need to proceed: “The question is now one of expediency. The routes are first adopted in the Public Service Commission, after which they must again be approved by the Board of Estimate. This route has already been approved by the Public Service Commission. The Board of Estimate cannot change it or reject it and the process must, if rejected, be started over again in the Public Service Commission. If the route is rejected, there may be possibly some difficulty in starting it again.”57

  Some saw ulterior motives behind those opposing the extension. “It is a well-known fact that real estate interests are [in] back of this proposed route as a means of booming certain real estate propositions in Bayside and the eastern part of Flushing,” Knab said. “I feel certain that the men who are [in] back of this proposed route do not really care whether or not the line is even built. All they want is to have the line approved, and have a handsome map of it in their respective offices. To the prospective buyer they can say: ‘Here is where the elevated line (or subway) is coming and it will give you a five-cent fare to any part of the greater city’ and their lots will then sell for high prices.”

  “On the other hand,” he continued, “we of Whitestone, as well as the people of College Point, have consistently asked for extensions, but have not been even considered in the laying out of the routes. Neither we nor the residents of Amity Street, who are chiefly affected by the route laid down have been given a hearing by the Public Service Commission, although we have time and time again asked for one through the various civic associations.”58 The Douglaston Civic Association voted on April 1 to call for the line to continue through Bayside to Douglaston and Little Neck.